ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Fibrocalcific phenotypes in calcific aortic valve disease: imaging characterization, treatment timing, and efficacy assessment.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Calcific aortic valve disease involves two structural processes, fibrous matrix remodeling and mineral deposition, that contribute unequally between patients, so leaflets of similar hemodynamic severity need not share the same tissue composition. Histologic and multi-omics studies have mapped this heterogeneity across sex, age, and valve morphology, and contrast-enhanced computed tomography angiography (CTA) has brought compositional assessment into living patients and into longitudinal follow-up. Calcific burden behaves consistently: it tracks stenosis severity, predicts progression, and carries prognostic weight. Findings for noncalcified tissue are less settled and depend on the population studied and on how the measurement is made. Whether total fibrocalcific volume performs well as a structural endpoint and whether CTA-derived noncalcified tissue volume adds predictive value beyond calcification are consequently two separate questions, and the literature often merges them. Pharmacologic trials in patients have almost always measured calcification progression or hemodynamics rather than longitudinal change in the fibrous matrix. Randomized lipid-lowering and mineral-targeted trials in patients have been negative, whereas animal and cell experiments show that established mineral lesions, cell states, and function can sometimes be modified, although these responses do not necessarily move together. This review integrates histology, multimodality imaging, clinical cohorts, pharmacologic trials, and preclinical intervention studies to define the fibrocalcific phenotype, distinguish prevention from slowing and reversal, and align therapeutic timing with endpoints at the levels of activity, tissue burden, valve function, myocardial response, and clinical events. Longitudinal measurement of leaflet composition and validation of treatment-induced change against functional outcomes remain the central gaps.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.